View Full Version : You hardcore religious people explain these verses
Amarelooms
10-11-2010, 10:14 PM
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
"One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
Thanks and God bless
:elephant
They all seem pretty direct tbh
ashbeeigh
10-11-2010, 10:21 PM
Well we haven't had one of these in a long time.
Amarelooms
10-11-2010, 10:42 PM
They all seem pretty direct tbh
Praise the Lord son
:elephant
FuzzyLumpkins
10-11-2010, 10:54 PM
That verse from Deuteronomy is pretty much the basis for the fable of the immaculate conception.
Bastards were frowned upon in those days and why admit youre a bastard when you can just make people believe it was god that knocked mom up.
Jesus would have had to grow up in a very hostile environment being born without a father in jewish culture 2000 years ago.
Amarelooms
10-11-2010, 10:58 PM
That verse from Deuteronomy is pretty much the basis for the fable of the immaculate conception.
Bastards were frowned upon in those days and why admit youre a bastard when you can just make people believe it was god that knocked mom up.
Jesus would have had to grow up in a very hostile environment being born without a father in jewish culture 2000 years ago.
Not to mention Mary would have been stoned son.....anyone with a brain knows Joseph was his father. God bless
:elephant
4>0rings
10-11-2010, 11:01 PM
http://images.tj1776washere.multiply.com/image/1/photos/7/600x600/23/JosephYouAreNotTheFather.png?et=d%2CmYgii9SQbUiRXi slEH1Q&nmid=248239647
ALVAREZ6
10-12-2010, 01:06 AM
Religion is stupid
Buddy Holly
10-12-2010, 02:15 AM
Religion is stupid
Amen brother. :toast
RedsLakers24
10-12-2010, 02:37 AM
http://images.tj1776washere.multiply.com/image/1/photos/7/600x600/23/JosephYouAreNotTheFather.png?et=d%2CmYgii9SQbUiRXi slEH1Q&nmid=248239647
:rollin
BadOdor
10-12-2010, 02:42 AM
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
What's wrong with this one?
polandprzem
10-12-2010, 05:26 AM
Women always were the second
And it should stay that way
LoneStarState'sPride
10-12-2010, 07:58 AM
Stupid thread from Amarelooms=all is right with the world.
dickface
10-12-2010, 08:17 AM
I'm a Muslim.
another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original.
DisAsTerBot
10-12-2010, 10:35 AM
another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original.
translation:
those parts dont count! :cry
boutons_deux
10-12-2010, 10:42 AM
All ancient, mainstream religions deny women equality with men, which of course Mr. God supports 100% and Mr. Christ confirmed every time He opened His mouth.
translation:
those parts dont count! :cry
i hope you're better at your day job than you are at trying to ascertain one's views on religion.
my post was a commentary on how poorly equipped many of the posters on this site are when it comes to 'discussions' of philosophy, religion or politics. to which you demonstrated that point quite refulgently.
DisAsTerBot
10-12-2010, 12:49 PM
i hope you're better at your day job than you are at trying to ascertain one's views on religion.
my post was a commentary on how poorly equipped many of the posters on this site are when it comes to 'discussions' of philosophy, religion or politics. to which you demonstrated that point quite refulgently.
enlighten us oh wise one
enlighten us oh wise one
if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
Amarelooms
10-12-2010, 05:57 PM
i hope you're better at your day job than you are at trying to ascertain one's views on religion.
my post was a commentary on how poorly equipped many of the posters on this site are when it comes to 'discussions' of philosophy, religion or politics. to which you demonstrated that point quite refulgently.
Get off your high horse dummy and go read your bible
:elephant
ploto
10-12-2010, 06:57 PM
That verse from Deuteronomy is pretty much the basis for the fable of the immaculate conception.
Bastards were frowned upon in those days and why admit youre a bastard when you can just make people believe it was god that knocked mom up.
Jesus would have had to grow up in a very hostile environment being born without a father in jewish culture 2000 years ago.
If you are going to bash a teaching, at least know what it is.
Amarelooms
10-12-2010, 07:33 PM
If you are going to bash a teaching, at least know what it is.
lol at you....no way to rationalize it dummy. Blind sheep just ignore the parts that don't work and keep spewing the other bullshit parts. If there is a God I pray he punishes the morons who blindly follow and never question anything....
:elephant
easjer
10-12-2010, 07:34 PM
To be fair, ploto, immaculate conception has different meanings, depending on the branch of Christianity. Some sects believe it refers exclusively to the conception of Christ, others the conception of Mary, so that she was born without sin and therefore able to be the vessel to bear Christ.
As for what is wrong with the verse on women, well, har dee har har. It goes against the scriptures which explicitly put women on the same plane as men, and scriptures which note that both women and men are created in the image of god, that creation was incomplete without women and ignores the historical data about the place women occupied in the early church. Paul was a misogynist; that's no secret.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2010, 07:45 PM
if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
Actually Locke is an example of how unenlightened the 1700's were.
His premise of the state of nature is so unbelievably stupid and his biblical literalism is not an an example of free, lucid thought.
Two Treatise on Government is laughable. It was just widely accepted because thought control and antiroyalist sentiments were all the rage 3 centuries ago.
Oh and Bertrand Russell says fuck you 1732.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2010, 07:49 PM
As for what is wrong with the verse on women, well, har dee har har. It goes against the scriptures which explicitly put women on the same plane as men, and scriptures which note that both women and men are created in the image of god, that creation was incomplete without women and ignores the historical data about the place women occupied in the early church. Paul was a misogynist; that's no secret.
ITs exactly these inconsistencies that should make people realize that its all made up. This is not god working in mysterious ways, its someone feeding you bullshit.
And Paul would just write whatever he thought someone wanted to hear. Talking to Corinth? Tell them women are property. Rome? Of course the state is supreme.
Paul was a politician and a damn good one. Christianity's early promotion went a long way.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-12-2010, 07:59 PM
If you are going to bash a teaching, at least know what it is.
In order for Mary to be free of sin should could not have fucked. Its by that logical extension that it had to be a virgin birth. The two are inseparable in christian theology.
Get off your high horse dummy and go read your bible
:elephant
and get out of your parent's basement and get to a library. i never once argued any biblical content here. i made an observation about your inability to create any decent syllogism and yet camoflauge that as 'argument'. the least you can do is offer us a better tautology. if your intent is to ridicule the fundamentalist's blind loyalty to sunday school indoctrinations then the irony is that, in the process, you committed the same inability to create a discourse, unless your standard of debate is defined by a sequence of contradictions and fallacies of abuse.
your inferences are as bad as your wit too if your assumption is that i am someone who swears by the bible.
Actually Locke is an example of how unenlightened the 1700's were.
His premise of the state of nature is so unbelievably stupid and his biblical literalism is not an an example of free, lucid thought.
Two Treatise on Government is laughable. It was just widely accepted because thought control and antiroyalist sentiments were all the rage 3 centuries ago.
Oh and Bertrand Russell says fuck you 1732.
defining the period of the enlightenment by one philosopher (and one very 'readers digest' synopsis of his beliefs at that) is akin to regarding the postmodernists as the singular extension of derrida's works on deconstructionalism. locke was but one philosopher of many whose intent was to develop an age of reason, of which the epicenter was france, not england. the discourse that the philosophers of that time engaged in (voltaire, hobbes, locke, rosseau..) were vested in the question of the state of man in nature and how this applied to government and individual rights. i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton.
bertrand russell was really no different. he was a man of math who championed logic and was deeply concerned with the morality of man. if anything, his metaphysical assertions would stand in contradiction to your generalizations about locke. if after all, you find fault with locke's treatise on ethics, why would you bring up russell (a philosopher who also could not escape the metaphysical narrative) ? in other words, if you think the discourse of the enlightenment is atavistic, then why not extend that same regard for the school of the logical positivists?
Wild Cobra
10-13-2010, 12:53 PM
I wonder how the Bible would be if it was translated for president Obama instead of King James?
FuzzyLumpkins
10-13-2010, 03:38 PM
defining the period of the enlightenment by one philosopher (and one very 'readers digest' synopsis of his beliefs at that) is akin to regarding the postmodernists as the singular extension of derrida's works on deconstructionalism. locke was but one philosopher of many whose intent was to develop an age of reason, of which the epicenter was france, not england. the discourse that the philosophers of that time engaged in (voltaire, hobbes, locke, rosseau..) were vested in the question of the state of man in nature and how this applied to government and individual rights. i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton.
bertrand russell was really no different. he was a man of math who championed logic and was deeply concerned with the morality of man. if anything, his metaphysical assertions would stand in contradiction to your generalizations about locke. if after all, you find fault with locke's treatise on ethics, why would you bring up russell (a philosopher who also could not escape the metaphysical narrative) ? in other words, if you think the discourse of the enlightenment is atavistic, then why not extend that same regard for the school of the logical positivists?
Hobbes' Leviathan is an exercise in royalist political ass kissing. He was a political theorist and not a very good one.
Russell's metaphysical assertion is completely contradictory to Locke. The state of nature according to Locke is that left to his own devices, man is a good altruistic being which he backs up extensively with biblical literalism. His logic to justify social contract is a joke. Russell elaborates on this extensively.
Locke was in no way metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. He reached political conclusions. Seriously read Two Treatise on Government, the first one is a response to a royalist where he refutes almost exclusively on biblical grounds. Its Adam this and Garden of Eden that.
In my view the only thing that Locke has going for him is that Jefferson referenced him in the Declaration of Independence.
If anything Russell tended towards Hume and used modern science to extend on Hume's thoughts on the relationship between sensory organs, reality and thought. Thats the basis of his overall philosophy. While you may not be able to prove causation as Hume demonstrates you have to go with Kant's idea of a priori or else reality is meaningless.
Rousseau was interesting in as far as passion and motivation which was fleshed out by Sartre but in terms of insightful I give him a backseat to the modern Jung and Freud, well and Sartre for that matter.
I see your Leibniz, Newton and Galileo and raise you Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Planck, Heisenberg, Feynman, Maxwell and Faraday.
The difference between those that depend on observations of reality and those that came in the time period between the fall of Rome and the 1800s was that the latter blindly followed the church, Aristotelian logic and Platonic bullshit. Its the blind followers like Descartes, Kierkegaard and Locke that I take issue with.
Really how you can talk about 18th century philosophical enlightenment and not talk about Hume and Kant is beyond me.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-13-2010, 03:57 PM
and get out of your parent's basement and get to a library. i never once argued any biblical content here. i made an observation about your inability to create any decent syllogism and yet camoflauge that as 'argument'. the least you can do is offer us a better tautology. if your intent is to ridicule the fundamentalist's blind loyalty to sunday school indoctrinations then the irony is that, in the process, you committed the same inability to create a discourse, unless your standard of debate is defined by a sequence of contradictions and fallacies of abuse.
your inferences are as bad as your wit too if your assumption is that i am someone who swears by the bible.
Syllogism? Really? I see none of them from you and its not like they are the ultimate form of argument. Loigcal thought does not have to come from 3's.
rr2418
10-13-2010, 05:25 PM
I'm a Muslim.
DAMM TERRORIST!!!!! :flipoff
Locke was in no way metaphysical beyond biblical literalism.
that really does not make much sense.
I see your Leibniz, Newton and Galileo and raise you Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Planck, Heisenberg, Feynman, Maxwell and Faraday.
and you would find that even the scientists you praise would extol their predecessors and also depend upon them for their own current contemporary theories. and even amongst your own pantheon there are disputes and disagreements. einstein never fully accepted quantum physics and while hawking uses the theory of relativity he even now has to admit that either the theory is flawed or our current use of it as applied to our present day model of the universe is. science is not a static endeavor. chances are some other 'in the box' thinker will make the same patronizing remarks about your own group.
The difference between those that depend on observations of reality and those that came in the time period between the fall of Rome and the 1800s was that the latter blindly followed the church, Aristotelian logic and Platonic bullshit. Its the blind followers like Descartes, Kierkegaard and Locke that I take issue with.
now your acting like quantum reality because you're all over the place. how did plato and aristotle enter the equation? (not that the theory of forms and the notion of elementary particles do not have at least some relevance in modern physics. not mathematically of course, but at least superficially)
Really how you can talk about 18th century philosophical enlightenment and not talk about Hume and Kant is beyond me.
this was never supposed to be about the enlightenment. it was a response to another response on how the discourse in this forum lacks the feel of any real argument. the enlightenment comment was a sarcastic pun. and then you went on some really incongruous tangent.
i've really just been playing along here but i still really do not get your point. i never advocated the bible or any one philosopher or school of thought for that matter. you're the one setting up boundaries here, based on a very unverifiable stance at that (or just your own pretentiousness).
Syllogism? Really? I see none of them from you and its not like they are the ultimate form of argument. Loigcal thought does not have to come from 3's.
since when does tautology constitute an argument? that was my point. that most of the rhetoric in here is mere observation. i even qualified that my own comment was observation.
most of this always turns out to be just a series of contradictory statements with very little substance in between all of this. what you and i are doing is no different, with the exception that we are just having a pissing contest on who seems to know more about philosophy.
if you somehow think i am not right about that you can offer some examples of posts that suggest otherwise. that would certainly be more to the point at hand than some five cent lecture about locke.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-13-2010, 09:05 PM
[/B]
that really does not make much sense.
You can really not understand how study of existence cannot be based on taking the literal interpretation of the bible? thats pretty sad.
Locke bases his entire state of nature on the story of genesis. You know, original sin and all that bullshit? He goes on about it extensively. Actually read him sometime.
and you would find that even the scientists you praise would extol their predecessors and also depend upon them for their own current contemporary theories. and even amongst your own pantheon there are disputes and disagreements. einstein never fully accepted quantum physics and while hawking uses the theory of relativity he even now has to admit that either the theory is flawed or our current use of it as applied to our present day model of the universe is. science is not a static endeavor. chances are some other 'in the box' thinker will make the same patronizing remarks about your own group.
Sure they do. Einstein had pictures of Faraday, Newton and Maxwell in his office. Makes sense because they were the foundation of his science.
This is actually you being all over the place.
The original argument was about looking to the 18th century for enlightenment which is where you started. Now you have gone onto this luddite ancestor worship tripe. While that certainly makes you easy to place in a demographic it hardly contributes much. Feeling your mortality a little bit are we?
now your acting like quantum reality because you're all over the place. how did plato and aristotle enter the equation? (not that the theory of forms and the notion of elementary particles do not have at least some relevance in modern physics. not mathematically of course, but at least superficially)
No you just fail to understand. The theory of forms or more specifically perfect forms is used extensively in Augustine's City of God.
Your ideas on Aristotle are less than compelling. Democritus of Thales was the one that first came up with the concept of the atom. He smelled bread or something. I cannot remember. What made Aristotle important was his need to categorize EVERYTHING and his pigeonholing argumentation into the form of a syllogism which is apparently a box you are incapable of seeing out of.
It was this methodology that was all the rage back in the 18th century. His comments on the nature of matter inhibited scientific development for centuries.
The point is that up to and including
this was never supposed to be about the enlightenment. it was a response to another response on how the discourse in this forum lacks the feel of any real argument. the enlightenment comment was a sarcastic pun. and then you went on some really incongruous tangent.
No this is about what you actually said:
if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
I am just pointing out that its not like the 18th century was any more enlightened than the modern age. Its doubly apt for this topic because of the limitations of thought because of the church's control of scholars during that time period.
Youre just trying to use your failure to understand as a refutation?
i've really just been playing along here but i still really do not get your point. i never advocated the bible or any one philosopher or school of thought for that matter. you're the one setting up boundaries here, based on a very unverifiable stance at that (or just your own pretentiousness).
I'm setting the boundaries? Really your the one that mentioned those philosophers. Your the one that brought up the 18th century. I just happened to think it was funny that you cite the likes of Hobbes for 18th century enlightenment.
And how you can cry pretentious when you hide behind diction is laughable. That shit might work against other people but I actually know what a syllogism is and know how to use them as well as their limitations. I know what tautology and atavism is.
You are clearly not talking to your audience. You are just trying to hide behind diction that most people are not aware of so you can seems to be more in a position of authority. Your not very good at it.
since when does tautology constitute an argument? that was my point. that most of the rhetoric in here is mere observation. i even qualified that my own comment was observation.
most of this always turns out to be just a series of contradictory statements with very little substance in between all of this. what you and i are doing is no different, with the exception that we are just having a pissing contest on who seems to know more about philosophy.
if you somehow think i am not right about that you can offer some examples of posts that suggest otherwise. that would certainly be more to the point at hand than some five cent lecture about locke.
Who died and made you the arbiter of ST?
Tautology and observation? What? If you are going to use 50 cent words at least know what they mean.
You fail at argumentation. You are using diction as bluster and now you are resorting to ad hominem.
Where is my contradiction? What statements am I representing as indisputable? If you see that type of thing then point it out. Do not be an intellectual coward by this passive aggressive bullshit. I dub thee the dissembler.
What do you expect? The original statement was basically you calling everyone here stupid. Now you are crying pissing contest? What a pussy.
You made the comment about 18th century enlightenment. I responded by actually discussing thought in the 18th century. Oh noes!
I agree with amarelooms: get off your high horse. You certainly cannot justify it more than anyone else around here. Me notwithstanding.
symple19
10-14-2010, 12:04 AM
Religion is stupid
cosigned
TDMVPDPOY
10-14-2010, 07:00 AM
bump
u guys know the bible, how come it only talks about when jesus was born and then when he starts his journey???
how come it doesnt talk about his childhood? wtf was there a timeskip to his adulthood?
AussieFanKurt
10-14-2010, 07:04 AM
Religion can lick my ballsack
In order for Mary to be free of sin should could not have fucked. Its by that logical extension that it had to be a virgin birth. The two are inseparable in christian theology.
Seriously, you need to know of what you speak
The theory, as proposed by the Catholic Church -but is NOT in the Bible is that Mary's parents did not have sex to conceive Mary; that she was immaculately conceived, and thus without sin. Many denominations do not believe that sex is a sin, nor do they believe that Mary was without sin. This all dates back to Victorian times, and the rise of "Marianists". Look it up.
As for the rest of this thread; pretty much an agnostic/atheistic cliched circle jerk. Props to you so intelligent, enlightened people.
...
most of this always turns out to be just a series of contradictory statements with very little substance in between all of this. what you and i are doing is no different, with the exception that we are just having a pissing contest on who seems to know more about philosophy.
...
Funny.
You can really not understand how study of existence cannot be based on taking the literal interpretation of the bible? thats pretty sad.
Locke bases his entire state of nature on the story of genesis. You know, original sin and all that bullshit? He goes on about it extensively. Actually read him sometime.
i have read him. what made no sense was your statement about locke not being any more metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. even locke's discussions on politics are technically metaphysical. you have a very narrow definition of metaphysics for someone who claims to be a follower of russell.
Sure they do. Einstein had pictures of Faraday, Newton and Maxwell in his office. Makes sense because they were the foundation of his science.
This is actually you being all over the place.
The original argument was about looking to the 18th century for enlightenment which is where you started. Now you have gone onto this luddite ancestor worship tripe. While that certainly makes you easy to place in a demographic it hardly contributes much. Feeling your mortality a little bit are we?
argument? what argument. you must have the personality of kant if you thought for a second that the remark "if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts. " as a response to the comment: "enlighten us oh wise one " was anything other than a play on words. no wonder you are such an opponent of aristotelian logic (despite the fact that your discussion bears a striking resembance to the socratic method). with over the top inferences such as getting from this that i was advocating the works of john locke is beyond me. or perhaps this is just you getting on your own high horse and trying to play good will hunting here. you missed the point if that is the role you are playing. you're being as haughty as any one else only you don't have the sense to admit it. i mean if you want to cast yourself as the patron saint of the spurs talk posters and get your panties in a wad because someone else in this forum has the audacity to make a value judgment then enjoy reveling in your own hypocrisy. and i don't know how a comment on the shifting paradigms of science merits another one of your mediocre takes, this time from the school of freud. maybe thomas kuhn just feared losing his place in this lineage of time you have created.
No you just fail to understand. The theory of forms or more specifically perfect forms is used extensively in Augustine's City of God.
Your ideas on Aristotle are less than compelling. Democritus of Thales was the one that first came up with the concept of the atom. He smelled bread or something. I cannot remember. What made Aristotle important was his need to categorize EVERYTHING and his pigeonholing argumentation into the form of a syllogism which is apparently a box you are incapable of seeing out of.
It was this methodology that was all the rage back in the 18th century. His comments on the nature of matter inhibited scientific development for centuries.
i never realized that aristotle was the sole gauntlet to the advancement of science. good thing galileo and copernicus somehow managed to escape the universal atavism of the enlightenment which you have yourself pigeonholed as some sort of ironic tribute to aristotle. leibniz and newton sure did not need any sort of formal logic to create the foundation for calculus either. considering that modern day cosmology pretty much took off from this point one would have to second guess whatever personal issues you have with any thinker outside of your preferred pantheon.
No this is about what you actually said:
I am just pointing out that its not like the 18th century was any more enlightened than the modern age. Its doubly apt for this topic because of the limitations of thought because of the church's control of scholars during that time period.
Youre just trying to use your failure to understand as a refutation?
no, this is what i really said, mr. strawman: "i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton."
sounds like you are as guilty of the church when it comes to playing politics with thought.
I'm setting the boundaries? Really your the one that mentioned those philosophers. Your the one that brought up the 18th century. I just happened to think it was funny that you cite the likes of Hobbes for 18th century enlightenment.
And how you can cry pretentious when you hide behind diction is laughable. That shit might work against other people but I actually know what a syllogism is and know how to use them as well as their limitations. I know what tautology and atavism is.
You are clearly not talking to your audience. You are just trying to hide behind diction that most people are not aware of so you can seems to be more in a position of authority. Your not very good at it.
all you have to do is go back and look over the thread again. the first one to bring up a philosopher was you when you mentioned locke. if i have to point out again what i actually stated and in what context then i would just be being repetitive to the point of absurdity (now you don't have to start talking about camus and sarte here. i am not bringing up the subject of existentialism!)
and i'm glad you know some subjects and words. do you want some sort of badge for that? the very fact that you stated "That shit might work against other people " strongly suggests that the real point i was actually making all along (that this forum often starts threads such as these which really amount to nothing more than moronic back and forths tantamount to the "oh yeah, but what are you" rituals of the 3rd grade) has merit.
Who died and made you the arbiter of ST?
Tautology and observation? What? If you are going to use 50 cent words at least know what they mean.
You fail at argumentation. You are using diction as bluster and now you are resorting to ad hominem.
Where is my contradiction? What statements am I representing as indisputable? If you see that type of thing then point it out. Do not be an intellectual coward by this passive aggressive bullshit. I dub thee the dissembler.
What do you expect? The original statement was basically you calling everyone here stupid. Now you are crying pissing contest? What a pussy.
You made the comment about 18th century enlightenment. I responded by actually discussing thought in the 18th century. Oh noes!
I agree with amarelooms: get off your high horse. You certainly cannot justify it more than anyone else around here. Me notwithstanding.
what makes you so sensitive? did you just now come out of some cave (now this must mean that i am talking about plato then i suppose)? you came in here to do the same. to piss all over people who read the bible (to which amarelooms somehow got from this that i read the bible or am religious). i guess your high horse is the only acceptable one. i'll at least have the honesty to admit i'm an arrogant SOB and not hide behind this working class hero rhetoric you want to champion. and if you think that most of the posts here really do offer anything more than tautology then enjoy the great debate. i'm sure there will be another thread just like this one within a week that will yield the exact same results all the others have.
great, you agree with another poster. either you think i care, you're taking a personal poll or this is just a bad attempt at a might makes right premise.
rather than going off on another tangent about some other philosopher that you decide to arbitrarily pick and make another commentary on (really, aren't you just being like the english professor who critiques literature but could never have the imagination or talent to create your own body of work?) why not stick to the actual subject at hand. it was not an argument. it was an observation. one that claimed that this was just: "another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original"
to be honest, at least amarelooms kept up with the sarcastic hue and left it at that. kudos to him for that much.
LoneStarState'sPride
10-14-2010, 10:51 AM
rjv: Game, set, match.
Can we please end this ridiculous thread now?
kthxbai
TDMVPDPOY
10-14-2010, 10:52 AM
some clowns in here still havnt answered my question, why was there a timeskip in the bible?
easjer
10-14-2010, 10:53 AM
bump
u guys know the bible, how come it only talks about when jesus was born and then when he starts his journey???
how come it doesnt talk about his childhood? wtf was there a timeskip to his adulthood?
Because the Bible was pieced together out of a number of texts regarding the life of Jesus with a specific narrative influence on the orders of Constantine? There are a number of texts contemporaneous to the Gospels that were rejected because they contradicted the others, were not in line with the image of Jesus that was being crafted, or were of questionable origin.
Speculatively, if one wanted to present Jesus as a divine being who was only temporarily of flesh and blood, then avoiding mundane things tying him to humanity - like, say, childhood - might be wise. It's hard to think of a little boy with skinned knees as a piece of the trinity-Godhead.
RandomGuy
10-14-2010, 11:01 AM
if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
I love the Enlightenment. Wonderful ideas. :tu
RandomGuy
10-14-2010, 11:06 AM
i have read him. what made no sense was your statement about locke not being any more metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. even locke's discussions on politics are technically metaphysical. you have a very narrow definition of metaphysics for someone who claims to be a follower of russell.
argument? what argument. you must have the personality of kant if you thought for a second that the remark "if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts. " as a response to the comment: "enlighten us oh wise one " was anything other than a play on words. no wonder you are such an opponent of aristotelian logic (despite the fact that your discussion bears a striking resembance to the socratic method). with over the top inferences such as getting from this that i was advocating the works of john locke is beyond me. or perhaps this is just you getting on your own high horse and trying to play good will hunting here. you missed the point if that is the role you are playing. you're being as haughty as any one else only you don't have the sense to admit it. i mean if you want to cast yourself as the patron saint of the spurs talk posters and get your panties in a wad because someone else in this forum has the audacity to make a value judgment then enjoy reveling in your own hypocrisy. and i don't know how a comment on the shifting paradigms of science merits another one of your mediocre takes, this time from the school of freud. maybe thomas kuhn just feared losing his place in this lineage of time you have created.
i never realized that aristotle was the sole gauntlet to the advancement of science. good thing galileo and copernicus somehow managed to escape the universal atavism of the enlightenment which you have yourself pigeonholed as some sort of ironic tribute to aristotle. leibniz and newton sure did not need any sort of formal logic to create the foundation for calculus either. considering that modern day cosmology pretty much took off from this point one would have to second guess whatever personal issues you have with any thinker outside of your preferred pantheon.
no, this is what i really said, mr. strawman: "i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton."
sounds like you are as guilty of the church when it comes to playing politics with thought.
all you have to do is go back and look over the thread again. the first one to bring up a philosopher was you when you mentioned locke. if i have to point out again what i actually stated and in what context then i would just be being repetitive to the point of absurdity (now you don't have to start talking about camus and sarte here. i am not bringing up the subject of existentialism!)
and i'm glad you know some subjects and words. do you want some sort of badge for that? the very fact that you stated "That shit might work against other people " strongly suggests that the real point i was actually making all along (that this forum often starts threads such as these which really amount to nothing more than moronic back and forths tantamount to the "oh yeah, but what are you" rituals of the 3rd grade) has merit.
what makes you so sensitive? did you just now come out of some cave (now this must mean that i am talking about plato then i suppose)? you came in here to do the same. to piss all over people who read the bible (to which amarelooms somehow got from this that i read the bible or am religious). i guess your high horse is the only acceptable one. i'll at least have the honesty to admit i'm an arrogant SOB and not hide behind this working class hero rhetoric you want to champion. and if you think that most of the posts here really do offer anything more than tautology then enjoy the great debate. i'm sure there will be another thread just like this one within a week that will yield the exact same results all the others have.
great, you agree with another poster. either you think i care, you're taking a personal poll or this is just a bad attempt at a might makes right premise.
rather than going off on another tangent about some other philosopher that you decide to arbitrarily pick and make another commentary on (really, aren't you just being like the english professor who critiques literature but could never have the imagination or talent to create your own body of work?) why not stick to the actual subject at hand. it was not an argument. it was an observation. one that claimed that this was just: "another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original"
to be honest, at least amarelooms kept up with the sarcastic hue and left it at that. kudos to him for that much.
This post me me feel dumb. Awesome.
Please, don't stop with this stuff, it is needed counterbalance to what 101A rightly described as rather cliche'ed Kibuki theater.
RandomGuy
10-14-2010, 12:01 PM
Seriously, you need to know of what you speak
The theory, as proposed by the Catholic Church -but is NOT in the Bible is that Mary's parents did not have sex to conceive Mary; that she was immaculately conceived, and thus without sin. Many denominations do not believe that sex is a sin, nor do they believe that Mary was without sin. This all dates back to Victorian times, and the rise of "Marianists". Look it up.
As for the rest of this thread; pretty much an agnostic/atheistic cliched circle jerk. Props to you so intelligent, enlightened people.
If you want a much less cliche'ed circle jerk, the Economist ran a series of debates.
This house believes that religion is a force for good. (http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/185)
When evangelical homeschoolers treat social and political withdrawal as a preliminary step toward cleansing the nation as a whole of spiritual contaminants, it raises the spectre of theologically-inspired conflict and oppression. When Catholics and Mormons bring into the political realm the authoritarian elements of their faith, it threatens to circumvent norms of democratic deliberation. When evangelical and Pentecostal Protestants denounce the scientific study of nature, they produce a population incapable of acting as thoughtful and informed citizens. When religious groups of every denomination view the nation’s politics and history through the lens of divine providence, they promise a false clarity that simplifies and distorts our understanding of the country’s actions in the world. When Christian traditionalists attempt to use the law to impose their vision of sexual morality on the nation as a whole, they show that they have failed to comprehend the ineradicably pluralistic character of a modern, liberal society.
The first part struck me as particularly tangent, because I know of a couple of my wife's relatives who, for purely religious reasons, decided to homeschool.
Neither of them were really smart enough or educated enough themselves to pull it off. At some point, my sister-in-law decided to put her kid into the public school system at age 14 after being home-schooled for most of her life. The child is in the special education section, because she is painfully, and obviously ignorant.
I know not all homeschoolers are as bad off as my wife's neice, but the total isolation and wallowing in ignorance I have seen in people fighting that particular culture war does not leave me to be optimistic when it comes to our ability to teach good science, or have a political system without religious litmus tests.
Mr. Linker's term "theocons" seems fairly apt.
I am reminded by a remark from Orson Scott Card about the dangers of giving the power of government to people who want to get "God back". They start striving to achieve "perfection".
ALVAREZ6
10-14-2010, 12:09 PM
some clowns in here still havnt answered my question, why was there a timeskip in the bible?
lol because the bible is complete bullshit
JoeChalupa
10-14-2010, 12:12 PM
It just does.
Drachen
10-14-2010, 12:57 PM
some clowns in here still havnt answered my question, why was there a timeskip in the bible?
Plus wasn't there the story about him being a 12 year old teaching the temple rabbis or something? I haven't read it in probably a decade, so might be wrong.
Also, think about it, who was it written by (supposedly)? It was written by all the dudes who hung with JC after age 30. It seems quite obvious that they would not write about him "discovering himself" at age 13 or whatever.
tbh i truly wonder how many people are bible thumping hardcore christians because they were force-fed jesus as a child and dont want to disappoint mommy and daddy with free thinking
Heath Ledger
10-14-2010, 01:03 PM
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
Drachen
10-14-2010, 01:06 PM
I know many who are the exact opposite and trust me, they are just as annoying.
true quote from one of them: "My dad started talking to me about the purpose of humans when I was 4 and my bed time stories were from philosophy books, so I don't need to listen to any shit that anyone has to say about this subject!" Said one notch below yelling, and I being the only other one in the conversation wasn't even arguing the counter-point.
mingus
10-14-2010, 01:58 PM
i don't know why people continue to get into debates about religion. the debate has been going on for 6,000 years and little poster at Spurstalk isn't going to bring it to an end.
I just wanna know what deconstructionalism is?
easjer
10-14-2010, 02:53 PM
i don't know why people continue to get into debates about religion. the debate has been going on for 6,000 years and little poster at Spurstalk isn't going to bring it to an end.
Boredom and, on my part, a desire for historical or factual accuracy.
Amarelooms
10-14-2010, 03:01 PM
tbh i truly wonder how many people are bible thumping hardcore christians because they were force-fed jesus as a child and dont want to disappoint mommy and daddy with free thinking
Bingo well said son....we believe what our parents told us to believe...at least for 90% of the people. However any semi-intelligent person should question it when older and at least realize what they were raised to believe might be complete bullshit.
Damn all the priests, mullahs, and religious people spreading their bullshit views straight to hell....
God bless you all and your families though...
:elephant
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 03:02 PM
fuck yeah, religion!
4>0rings
10-14-2010, 03:08 PM
Boredom and, on my part, a desire for historical or factual accuracy.
That's going to happen on ST?
Creepn
10-14-2010, 03:14 PM
We wouldn't even be talking about Christianity if it wasn't for Constantine. Dude saved your religion otherwise it would've died out as another pagan religion.
Blake
10-14-2010, 03:17 PM
We wouldn't even be talking about Christianity if it wasn't for Constantine. Dude saved your religion otherwise it would've died out as another pagan religion.
phew, thank god
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 03:25 PM
i have read him. what made no sense was your statement about locke not being any more metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. even locke's discussions on politics are technically metaphysical. you have a very narrow definition of metaphysics for someone who claims to be a follower of russell.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Technically metaphysical? According to who? You? Well I say its intentionally political. Weeeeeee.....
:downspin:
I never claimed to be a follower of anyone. I agree with quite a bit of Russell but hardly do I 'follow.'
I said the study of existence which is about as broad as you can get. The entire basis of his 'metaphysics' is the state of nature. Everything else stems from that. If you have read him then give an alternate explanation.
Oh yeah you just condescend and then refuse to take a stand on anything. I call that intellectual cowardice.
argument? what argument. you must have the personality of kant if you thought for a second that the remark "if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts. " as a response to the comment: "enlighten us oh wise one " was anything other than a play on words. no wonder you are such an opponent of aristotelian logic (despite the fact that your discussion bears a striking resembance to the socratic method). with over the top inferences such as getting from this that i was advocating the works of john locke is beyond me. or perhaps this is just you getting on your own high horse and trying to play good will hunting here. you missed the point if that is the role you are playing. you're being as haughty as any one else only you don't have the sense to admit it. i mean if you want to cast yourself as the patron saint of the spurs talk posters and get your panties in a wad because someone else in this forum has the audacity to make a value judgment then enjoy reveling in your own hypocrisy. and i don't know how a comment on the shifting paradigms of science merits another one of your mediocre takes, this time from the school of freud. maybe thomas kuhn just feared losing his place in this lineage of time you have created.
I am an arrogant fuck. I have never claimed otherwise so spare me the sanctimony. You claim to make a value judgement then you say that there is no argument? And you want to talk about tautology. What a joke.
The implication is that the 1700s is some enlightened era whereas the discussion here is stupid. That is what you are getting at at the core and I am discussing the people that would be considered 'enlightened' from that time period.
Your claim of the 18th century is open for discussion. Again you are claiming tautology. I doubt you really know what it means because your position is exactly that.
You just do not have the ability to back it up so you dissemble dissemble dissemble. Have the guts to back up what you say or keep your mouth shut.
Furthermore comparing the Socratic method with the logic of Aristotle and you just go on to prove you do not know what you are talking about.
Socratic method is an open ended discussion. Aristotle used induced knowledge in syllogisms to deduce other knowledge. It has a definite conclusion in three steps.
Furthermore, Aristotle was vary contrary to his teacher. He disagreed with forms instead talking of essence, he was systematic in his categorization of knowledge and the method by which it is obtained which is the antithesis of an open ended discussion.
i never realized that aristotle was the sole gauntlet to the advancement of science. good thing galileo and copernicus somehow managed to escape the universal atavism of the enlightenment which you have yourself pigeonholed as some sort of ironic tribute to aristotle. leibniz and newton sure did not need any sort of formal logic to create the foundation for calculus either. considering that modern day cosmology pretty much took off from this point one would have to second guess whatever personal issues you have with any thinker outside of your preferred pantheon.
They were significant in that they differed from the Aristotelian model. The church persecuted Galileo because it deviated from Aristotle's view. And try and keep up. Me saying that he held back scence for a millinea is hardly a tribute.
Additionally, saying that Newton and Leibniz did not come up with differential and integral calculus using formal logic just goes to show how little you understand.
Mathematics IS formal logic and the proof of a differential uses equalities extensively. The gravitational constant was found using the same methods extrapolated from the works of Kepler.
no, this is what i really said, mr. strawman: "i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton."
sounds like you are as guilty of the church when it comes to playing politics with thought.
Whats sad here is you again dissemble. Sardonic huh? Again it seems that you do not know what the word means or are using it to be able to go either way. This passive aggressive bullshit is really lame.
Also look up when the three of them wrote their works. Here's a hint: it was not in the 18th century.
And sure, there were some people that deviated from the accepted norms but Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. In that time period you had to fight witht he most powerful institution of that time. It was hardly an environment for free and open discussion. WTF does that tell about the tenor of that time period. It sure was not free and open thought.
As for me I welcome discussion and argumentation. Thats why I love this place because it allows for just that. You just will not take a stand or even try and support what you say. Now you are dissembling, crying about a sardonic 'tone.'
all you have to do is go back and look over the thread again. the first one to bring up a philosopher was you when you mentioned locke. if i have to point out again what i actually stated and in what context then i would just be being repetitive to the point of absurdity (now you don't have to start talking about camus and sarte here. i am not bringing up the subject of existentialism!)
I have gone over the thread. Your point here was that most discussions here are stupid. My point is you referencing the 18th century as proof of that is stupid.
Locke is considered on of the great thinkers of that time. You give credit to Hobbes and others. I refuted that. Dissemble dissemble dissemble.
and i'm glad you know some subjects and words. do you want some sort of badge for that? the very fact that you stated "That shit might work against other people " strongly suggests that the real point i was actually making all along (that this forum often starts threads such as these which really amount to nothing more than moronic back and forths tantamount to the "oh yeah, but what are you" rituals of the 3rd grade) has merit.
Oh so now your choice of diction is to elaborate on a point? Give me a break.
You are claiming other people in general here are stupid. You then use diction to attempt to talk down to people. The badge comment is more apt applied to you.
God, your passive aggressive dissembling is lame.
what makes you so sensitive? did you just now come out of some cave (now this must mean that i am talking about plato then i suppose)? you came in here to do the same. to piss all over people who read the bible (to which amarelooms somehow got from this that i read the bible or am religious). i guess your high horse is the only acceptable one. i'll at least have the honesty to admit i'm an arrogant SOB and not hide behind this working class hero rhetoric you want to champion. and if you think that most of the posts here really do offer anything more than tautology then enjoy the great debate. i'm sure there will be another thread just like this one within a week that will yield the exact same results all the others have.
great, you agree with another poster. either you think i care, you're taking a personal poll or this is just a bad attempt at a might makes right premise.
rather than going off on another tangent about some other philosopher that you decide to arbitrarily pick and make another commentary on (really, aren't you just being like the english professor who critiques literature but could never have the imagination or talent to create your own body of work?) why not stick to the actual subject at hand. it was not an argument. it was an observation. one that claimed that this was just: "another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original"
to be honest, at least amarelooms kept up with the sarcastic hue and left it at that. kudos to him for that much.
Sensitive? Hardly. Aggressive? You betcha.
Reading into tone on a message board is fun and quite useless. So is making assumptions about the thoughts of others, in this case amarelooms, for self serving purposes. While it may be fun to claim he bought into your bullshit there is absolutely nothing to support that.
And actually so is making comments about what I have created on my own. You have no idea what I have done, am doing or will do in the future.
I did not arbitrarily pick anything. You said 1700s enlightenment. I brought up someone from the 1700s. You brought up others so I discussed them. You did not allude to them you brought them up explicitly. Again if anyone needs to take the hint and just leave it alone, its you.
I realize that you will just dissemble to the point of ignoring things that you brought up but do not expect to lump everyone into the category of stupid and then expect to not be called on it.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 03:42 PM
Seriously, you need to know of what you speak
The theory, as proposed by the Catholic Church -but is NOT in the Bible is that Mary's parents did not have sex to conceive Mary; that she was immaculately conceived, and thus without sin. Many denominations do not believe that sex is a sin, nor do they believe that Mary was without sin. This all dates back to Victorian times, and the rise of "Marianists". Look it up.
As for the rest of this thread; pretty much an agnostic/atheistic cliched circle jerk. Props to you so intelligent, enlightened people.
Huh?
I call bullshit. I have looked it up.
Mary begot Jesus so therefore she had to be free of sin. There was only one virgin birth, Jesus. The fact that theological discussions revolve around shit like this just goes to show how asinine it is.
Mary was huge before Constantine from what I understand. The idea of the mother as a creator was a popular sentiment.
Roman elites were misogynist and Jesus as 'king of kings' started getting more play.
Its all fables to me anyway.
Do not get me wrong much of the ethics advocated by Jesus I really like. Some not so much but a lot I do like. Its just all the hokey shit I have issue with.
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 03:46 PM
whew... thank god i didn't read any of that bs above. THANK GOD!
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 03:50 PM
whew... thank god i didn't read any of that bs above. THANK GOD!
whew... thank god i never thought getting calf tats was a good idea. THANK GOD!
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 04:10 PM
whew... thank god i never thought getting calf tats was a good idea. THANK GOD!
ah, poor you taking what i said so personal. bitchass!
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 04:19 PM
ah, poor you taking what i said so personal. bitchass!
So when he asked you where you wanted the Spurs inked did you take it personal when the artist laughed at you?
ALVAREZ6
10-14-2010, 04:29 PM
:lol
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 04:35 PM
So when he asked you where you wanted the Spurs inked did you take it personal when the artist laughed at you?
same ol' same ol'... you gonna come up with anything new or ride the wave the other bitches do around here?
btw, the artist is a friend of mine, i chose the spot for the tats 6 yrs ago, and i got no laughs about any of it except here on ST which is cool with me. i don't give a fuck what a pos like you or anyone else on the internet thinks about my legs or the tattoos on them.
btw, fuck your god!
it is what it is.
clambake
10-14-2010, 04:36 PM
the artist is a friend? you need a new friend.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 04:41 PM
the artist is a friend? you need a new friend.
:rollin
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 04:42 PM
the artist is a friend? you need a new friend.
yall need a new shtick for real!
DeadlyDynasty
10-14-2010, 04:57 PM
yall need a new shtick for real!
Tattoo removal costs (http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/tattoo-removal.html)
That looks like it can get pretty pricey, broseph
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Technically metaphysical? According to who? You? Well I say its intentionally political. Weeeeeee.....
:downspin:
I never claimed to be a follower of anyone. I agree with quite a bit of Russell but hardly do I 'follow.'
I said the study of existence which is about as broad as you can get. The entire basis of his 'metaphysics' is the state of nature. Everything else stems from that. If you have read him then give an alternate explanation.
Oh yeah you just condescend and then refuse to take a stand on anything. I call that intellectual cowardice.
seems like someone belongs to the very set they decided to create for the purpose of their own condescension. feel free to consider yourself to be part of that domain.
I am an arrogant fuck. I have never claimed otherwise so spare me the sanctimony. You claim to make a value judgement then you say that there is no argument? And you want to talk about tautology. What a joke.
The implication is that the 1700s is some enlightened era whereas the discussion here is stupid. That is what you are getting at at the core and I am discussing the people that would be considered 'enlightened' from that time period.
Your claim of the 18th century is open for discussion. Again you are claiming tautology. I doubt you really know what it means because your position is exactly that.
i stated that, at best, the exchanges in here are mostly tautological in nature. truthfully, my original statement was not even tautological because it was not the sort of value judgement that could be deemed all that empirical (although it probably is mostly factual. i mean has anything we really discussed here meant shit to anyone?) telling you what i believe is neither an argument or a statement that merits debate or analysis (although you sure have been trying to somehow make it so). i guess if i told you i liked to excercise, you'd go off on some tangent about kinesiology and how it pertains to my assertion.
You just do not have the ability to back it up so you dissemble dissemble dissemble. Have the guts to back up what you say or keep your mouth shut.
:lol okay cyberspace bad ass, though i really do not know what you want me to back up. i think you've proven my point quite well. one locke dissertation later and you still have not said anything worthwhile.
Furthermore comparing the Socratic method with the logic of Aristotle and you just go on to prove you do not know what you are talking about.
Socratic method is an open ended discussion. Aristotle used induced knowledge in syllogisms to deduce other knowledge. It has a definite conclusion in three steps.
Furthermore, Aristotle was vary contrary to his teacher. He disagreed with forms instead talking of essence, he was systematic in his categorization of knowledge and the method by which it is obtained which is the antithesis of an open ended discussion.
the method is one where we come to know, by a process of recognition, truths we already in some sense know. it is paradoxical because it implies both knowledge and ignorance of the same things. in the prior analytics aristotle associated the doctrine of 'the meno' with what he called the recognition of the universal. he claimed that in no way do we have a knowledge of the particular but that we do get that knowledge through the process of induction. aristotle acknowledged that the socratic method was inductive and aristotle's definition of the good employed various elements of the socratic method indeed. the three greeks were definitely distinct from one another but by no means were they all that dichotomous.
They were significant in that they differed from the Aristotelian model. The church persecuted Galileo because it deviated from Aristotle's view. And try and keep up. Me saying that he held back scence for a millinea is hardly a tribute.
Additionally, saying that Newton and Leibniz did not come up with differential and integral calculus using formal logic just goes to show how little you understand.
thanks. that was my point. you read so fast you failed to catch i was being a smart ass to you.
Mathematics IS formal logic and the proof of a differential uses equalities extensively. The gravitational constant was found using the same methods extrapolated from the works of Kepler.
thanks again. pretty much what i already stated.
Whats sad here is you again dissemble. Sardonic huh? Again it seems that you do not know what the word means or are using it to be able to go either way. This passive aggressive bullshit is really lame.
Also look up when the three of them wrote their works. Here's a hint: it was not in the 18th century.
so now we are confined to the 18th century and no longer to locke and the enlightenment in general. i'd say this is just you being pedantic but that would be giving you too much credit.
And sure, there were some people that deviated from the accepted norms but Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. In that time period you had to fight witht he most powerful institution of that time. It was hardly an environment for free and open discussion. WTF does that tell about the tenor of that time period. It sure was not free and open thought.
nice point. i have no idea why you bring it up because i never even broached this subject.
As for me I welcome discussion and argumentation. Thats why I love this place because it allows for just that. You just will not take a stand or even try and support what you say. Now you are dissembling, crying about a sardonic 'tone.'
I have gone over the thread. Your point here was that most discussions here are stupid. My point is you referencing the 18th century as proof of that is stupid.
no what is stupid is that you never could make sense of the fact that i made a comment alone about how much a waste of time discussions in here are. god knows i've wasted far too much time in here already.
Locke is considered on of the great thinkers of that time. You give credit to Hobbes and others. I refuted that. Dissemble dissemble dissemble.
you should be given an honorary doctorate and universities throughout the world should defer to your intellectual hubris. they can remove these thinkers from all of the syllabi in all the univerities that waste their time on these chumps.
Oh so now your choice of diction is to elaborate on a point? Give me a break.
You are claiming other people in general here are stupid. You then use diction to attempt to talk down to people. The badge comment is more apt applied to you.
God, your passive aggressive dissembling is lame.
almost as lame as your inability to read into the irony of your own statement. but please, show me how most of these threads turn out and how much really great discourse in here really exists. if you want to make yourself the SRT dissident go for it. i'll save my efforts for the real world and defer to you the status as king of cyberspace.
Sensitive? Hardly. Aggressive? You betcha.
Reading into tone on a message board is fun and quite useless. So is making assumptions about the thoughts of others, in this case amarelooms, for self serving purposes. While it may be fun to claim he bought into your bullshit there is absolutely nothing to support that.
And actually so is making comments about what I have created on my own. You have no idea what I have done, am doing or will do in the future.
I did not arbitrarily pick anything. You said 1700s enlightenment. I brought up someone from the 1700s. You brought up others so I discussed them. You did not allude to them you brought them up explicitly. Again if anyone needs to take the hint and just leave it alone, its you.
I realize that you will just dissemble to the point of ignoring things that you brought up but do not expect to lump everyone into the category of stupid and then expect to not be called on it.
it's not ignoring anything. it's called realizing you really don't care. i already have a degree in philosophy and math. why would i want to go over a review of philsophers i already read when all i came in here to do was point out how crappy these threads are. sorry if you feel that they have the substance of something greater than that and my point to the contrary offends you. personally, i'm tickled pink for you that you have some friends in here.
Heath Ledger
10-14-2010, 06:02 PM
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com :wakeup
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 06:20 PM
Tattoo removal costs (http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/tattoo-removal.html)
That looks like it can get pretty pricey, broseph
i find your concern hilarious but trust me, there's no need because i definitely have no intentions of removing any tattoo i have or will have in the future.
your concern for another man is also a bit perplexing... you must like your men without tattoos. homo!
DeadlyDynasty
10-14-2010, 06:27 PM
i find your concern hilarious but trust me, there's no need because i definitely have no intentions of removing any tattoo i have or will have in the future.
your concern for another man is also a bit perplexing... you must like your men without tattoos. homo!
Unfortunately they can only remove your tattoo, not the Hep-C that came with it.
koriwhat
10-14-2010, 06:47 PM
Unfortunately they can only remove your tattoo, not the Hep-C that came with it.
you're fuckin' lame man. step up your game "brah"!
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 07:00 PM
Uh-oh now hes claiming a degree and using the term dichotomous. Next you should draw up the white flag and put me on ignore like partschanger.
Then you claim me pedantic. Thats pretty sad. Oh and btw, dichotomy assumes two. You know the whole prefix di- and all that. Next time try using the term 'different' rather than trying to seem smarter than you really are.
Like I said you are an intellectual coward. Your response to Aristotle vs the Socratic method was an admission that for the most part I am right but you cover it up with a bunch of bullshit.
This has nothing with me being a badass and everything to do with your cowardice. Its hardly a zero sum game.
Really though, its pretty obvious you are going to hide behind claims of sarcasm and other passive aggressive bullshit. This most current response is just another example of this.
I mean you even criticize the idea that someone might discuss kinesiology in reference to exercise. You said look to the 1700s for enlightenment. I said I do not agree. Oh the humanity!
For all of your condescension of my comments on Locke -although that is hardly the sole contention- you have been absolutely unable to justify any refutation. You have just given up and gone passive aggressive like a petulant child. Ironic considering your demographic.
so now we are confined to the 18th century and no longer to locke and the enlightenment in general.
This is the epitome of your intellectual cowardice. You are the one that said the 1700s. You arbitrarily chose that. You tried to support that from people from different centuries. You cannot even stand by your original statement.
Whats great is that you then accuse me of going off the deep end on tangents. Hypocrite much. All I am trying to do is get you to justify your original assertion.
You cannot even do that. You continue to dissemble and throw out red herrings.
Oh and on a final note. I am getting PMs giving me kudos because of how I am responding to you. Apparently, others have not appreciated your pedantry but whats funny is that you use try and use diction to seem more than you are but fail as often as not:
the three greeks were definitely distinct from one another but by no means were they all that dichotomous.
:rollin
I may not have any friends but you certainly have enemies.
Amarelooms
10-14-2010, 08:36 PM
Hey Fuzzy and rjv...stop posting your bullshit in my thread sons. You two aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
:elephant
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 08:37 PM
Hey Fuzzy go fuck yourself son....stop posting your bullshit in my thread. You aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
:elephant
aww you actually read through all that. i thought nobody actually read through line by line arguments.
:depressed
Amarelooms
10-14-2010, 08:39 PM
aww you actually read through all that. i thought nobody actually read through line by line arguments.
:depressed
added rjv as well...you both are big dummies. Praise the Lord
:elephant
Uh-oh now hes claiming a degree and using the term dichotomous. Next you should draw up the white flag and put me on ignore like partschanger.
Then you claim me pedantic. Thats pretty sad. Oh and btw, dichotomy assumes two. You know the whole prefix di- and all that. Next time try using the term 'different' rather than trying to seem smarter than you really are.
Like I said you are an intellectual coward. Your response to Aristotle vs the Socratic method was an admission that for the most part I am right but you cover it up with a bunch of bullshit.
This has nothing with me being a badass and everything to do with your cowardice. Its hardly a zero sum game.
Really though, its pretty obvious you are going to hide behind claims of sarcasm and other passive aggressive bullshit. This most current response is just another example of this.
I mean you even criticize the idea that someone might discuss kinesiology in reference to exercise. You said look to the 1700s for enlightenment. I said I do not agree. Oh the humanity!
For all of your condescension of my comments on Locke -although that is hardly the sole contention- you have been absolutely unable to justify any refutation. You have just given up and gone passive aggressive like a petulant child. Ironic considering your demographic.
This is the epitome of your intellectual cowardice. You are the one that said the 1700s. You arbitrarily chose that. You tried to support that from people from different centuries. You cannot even stand by your original statement.
Whats great is that you then accuse me of going off the deep end on tangents. Hypocrite much. All I am trying to do is get you to justify your original assertion.
You cannot even do that. You continue to dissemble and throw out red herrings.
Oh and on a final note. I am getting PMs giving me kudos because of how I am responding to you. Apparently, others have not appreciated your pedantry but whats funny is that you use try and use diction to seem more than you are but fail as often as not:
:rollin
I may not have any friends but you certainly have enemies.
all of that and it just comes down to what i said would happen all along. the thread would be reduced to a case of the adult version of third grade dynamics. for all that you spent writing all of this, you essentially have just paraded around in an argument of abuse and an argument of might makes right. nice to know that in the end you're just spewing out fallacies and going on and on. exactly what i stated happens in these threads all along. you even had to go and tell me that everyone else hates me. how desperate is that? you see, i never even had to defend my original assertion. you have demonstrated it all on your own.
so you admit you have no friends or enemies. damn dude, not only are you not interesting enough to have people like you. you are not even interesting enough to get people to hate you.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-14-2010, 09:00 PM
all of that and it just comes down to what i said would happen all along. the thread would be reduced to a case of the adult version of third grade dynamics. for all that you spent writing all of this, you essentially have just paraded around in an argument of abuse and an argument of might makes right. nice to know that in the end you're just spewing out fallacies and going on and on. exactly what i stated happens in these threads all along. you even had to go and tell me that everyone else hates me. how desperate is that? you see, i never even had to defend my original assertion. you have demonstrated it all on your own.
:rolleyes
I tried actually discussing what you said. You never even tried but decided to just condescend. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry Amare.
Hey Fuzzy and rjv...stop posting your bullshit in my thread sons. You two aren't nearly as smart as you think...with your drawn out idiotic ramblings.
:elephant
now that i can agree with.
The Reckoning
10-14-2010, 11:34 PM
HmRDM7GyJXE
Oh, Gee!!
10-14-2010, 11:36 PM
new testament, brah.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-15-2010, 12:31 AM
bump
u guys know the bible, how come it only talks about when jesus was born and then when he starts his journey???
how come it doesnt talk about his childhood? wtf was there a timeskip to his adulthood?
There are a couple of explanations that i have read/heard about this.
The first is that the story would not have been very nice. Now this is not to say that the story in the scriptures is nice but Jesus would have gone through hell in his childhood.
He was a bastard or a mazmer in jewish terms. For all the talk of him being the chosen one etc the people of his village would not have thought so. He would have been a social outcast. His mother would have been regarded as a whore as well.
Now this is not a value judgement on my part. i am just talking about hebrew culture during that time period. Everyone in the village would have looked down on him and ostracized him. People want to talk of kids nowadays being bullied. Well the bullying on him would have been sanctioned.
Being a social and spiritual outcast in his youth does not jive well with the story in the bible.
Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Other things that I have heard is that he more than likely left Nazareth early. He was probably treated like shit so who can blame him. John the baptist was his cousin and traipsing through the wilderness so it would make sense to go and hag out with him.
Quite a bit of what Jesus talks about is straight out of John's Kabbalah. All the kingdom of god and repentance, baptism, imminent destruction of the world was all John's shtick. Theres a school of thought that John kissing Jesus' ass is a bunch off bullshit. John did baptize Jesus after all.
Of course this once again would not jive, the king of kings being subservient to anyone doe not look too good so.....
I have no doubt that Jesus had rabbinic callings. He could not have pursued that amongst his own people. His crazy cousin running around in the woods is quite a different story.
Amarelooms
10-15-2010, 07:56 AM
^^^ Son are you really this dumb....I bet 80% of the shit in the bible was never said by Jesus and has nothing to do with him.....
:elephant
AussieFanKurt
10-15-2010, 08:35 AM
7jETVUulGwc
Summers
10-15-2010, 08:49 AM
There are a couple of explanations that i have read/heard about this.
The first is that the story would not have been very nice. Now this is not to say that the story in the scriptures is nice but Jesus would have gone through hell in his childhood.
He was a bastard or a mazmer in jewish terms. For all the talk of him being the chosen one etc the people of his village would not have thought so. He would have been a social outcast. His mother would have been regarded as a whore as well.
Now this is not a value judgement on my part. i am just talking about hebrew culture during that time period. Everyone in the village would have looked down on him and ostracized him. People want to talk of kids nowadays being bullied. Well the bullying on him would have been sanctioned.
Being a social and spiritual outcast in his youth does not jive well with the story in the bible.
Deuteronomy 23:2
Other things that I have heard is that he more than likely left Nazareth early. He was probably treated like shit so who can blame him. John the baptist was his cousin and traipsing through the wilderness so it would make sense to go and hag out with him.
Quite a bit of what Jesus talks about is straight out of John's Kabbalah. All the kingdom of god and repentance, baptism, imminent destruction of the world was all John's shtick. Theres a school of thought that John kissing Jesus' ass is a bunch off bullshit. John did baptize Jesus after all.
Of course this once again would not jive, the king of kings being subservient to anyone doe not look too good so.....
I have no doubt that Jesus had rabbinic callings. He could not have pursued that amongst his own people. His crazy cousin running around in the woods is quite a different story.
Probably also spent his young adulthood as far east as India, studying eastern religions.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-15-2010, 10:58 AM
^^^ Son are you really this dumb....I bet 80% of the shit in the bible was never said by Jesus and has nothing to do with him.....
:elephant
I snort wood glue and enjoy being kicked in the balls.
RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 12:30 PM
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and Web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.
So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.
Why not? Because God is imaginary. Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence. We will approach this issue from several different angles in this book, but Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 are particularly important:
Interesting. Logical. Provable.
The fact that prayers are never answered when the possibility of coincidence is eliminated meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to ambiguous prayers using statistical tools, what we find is that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. In other words, when we statisically compare prayer to coincidence for explaining any situation, they are identical. For example, this article points out:
One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments. [ref]
It also says:
A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
Correlation is not cause.
RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 12:33 PM
Probably also spent his young adulthood as far east as India, studying eastern religions.
India and Persia were not all that far away at the time.
He might not have even had to travel to learn about that, simply due to contact with trading caravans and so forth.
RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 12:39 PM
I may not have any friends but you certainly have enemies.
Respectfully:
You would have better conversations if you toned the hostility down a notch.
Well-meant and freely given, although I certainly understand being frustrated at people on the otherside of an argument.
The greatest war is the war against one's lower self.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-15-2010, 12:46 PM
Respectfully:
You would have better conversations if you toned the hostility down a notch.
Well-meant and freely given, although I certainly understand being frustrated at people on the otherside of an argument.
LOL at quoting the winged horse guy.
Anyway you are right. I just misread his tickled pink comment.
Its not that I am hostile towards people on the other side of an argument. I just loathe people that complain about one thing(inane arguments) and then turning around and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (hiding behind sarcasm rather than having a debate).
Once it goes to that line by line shit its too far gone. No one really reads them anyway. At least I almost never do unless I am participating.
RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 01:13 PM
LOL at quoting the winged horse guy.
Anyway you are right. I just misread his tickled pink comment.
Its not that I am hostile towards people on the other side of an argument. I just loathe people that complain about one thing(inane arguments) and then turning around and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (hiding behind sarcasm rather than having a debate).
Once it goes to that line by line shit its too far gone. No one really reads them anyway. At least I almost never do unless I am participating.
It is hard. That is why I break up the line by line stuff into seperate posts, otherwise it gets very hard to follow/edit.
While I generally am not a big fan of religion, I do recognize that some religious books can contain bits of wisdom that can be meaningful and helpful. The quote from Mohammed is one of my favorites. It's inclusion was meant as subtle humor though. ;)
A theory is that religion, at its most fundamental beginnings, long before the written word, long before civilization even, was small groups of people attempting to explain and decipher their environment, and their lives within its context. However, man, being incredibly intelligent, quickly realized this natural human affinity for deciphering the unknown could be harnessed as a method of near-completely binding control.
Of course, naturalistic elements are ever present - male's physical domination, in a world where brainpower was useful but unnecessary past a certain point due to the lack of transferable knowledge between generations, ultimately made its way into all of the major religious movements.
RandomGuy
10-15-2010, 02:49 PM
I have two things against really believing that the Bible is *the* infallible word of God that it says it is.
The existance of evil. Oddly enough, after arriving independently at the conclusion that if there is evil, then God most certainly is not as most Christians concieve him/her/it to be, I found out that this has a fairly formal name, The Problem of Evil.
The other is that the Bible outright says God not only allows evil, he condones something widely held as evil, slavery.
Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Jesus himself seemed perfectly fine with it, just as one might expect of someone of that time period..
I don't see the Word of God there, merely the word of men. Men for that matter, using religion to further their own economic interests.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-15-2010, 04:18 PM
I have two things against really believing that the Bible is *the* infallible word of God that it says it is.
The existance of evil. Oddly enough, after arriving independently at the conclusion that if there is evil, then God most certainly is not as most Christians concieve him/her/it to be, I found out that this has a fairly formal name, The Problem of Evil.
The other is that the Bible outright says God not only allows evil, he condones something widely held as evil, slavery.
Jesus himself seemed perfectly fine with it, just as one might expect of someone of that time period..
I don't see the Word of God there, merely the word of men. Men for that matter, using religion to further their own economic interests.
The old testament is basically the laws of the priest class in more or less chronological order. Its not god saying anything. Its the priest class exerting social control.
PopeJohnPaulII
10-15-2010, 04:22 PM
i find your concern hilarious but trust me, there's no need because i definitely have no intentions of removing any tattoo i have or will have in the future.
your concern for another man is also a bit perplexing... you must like your men without tattoos. homo!
You should remove the jizz stains I left on your chin last Sunday before mass.
PopeJohnPaulII
10-15-2010, 04:23 PM
Of course the Bible and religion is bullshit but it got me pizaid and lizaid by some sweet young boys. I didn't even have to face consequences. Now that's gangsta.
Amarelooms
10-15-2010, 04:29 PM
The old testament is basically the laws of the priest class in more or less chronological order. Its not god saying anything. Its the priest class exerting social control.
lol at you....brainwashed and rationalizing. Face it what you were told and believe is mainly bullshit and man made....get a grip dummy
:elephant
easjer
10-15-2010, 08:41 PM
I have two things against really believing that the Bible is *the* infallible word of God that it says it is.
The existance of evil. Oddly enough, after arriving independently at the conclusion that if there is evil, then God most certainly is not as most Christians concieve him/her/it to be, I found out that this has a fairly formal name, The Problem of Evil.
The other is that the Bible outright says God not only allows evil, he condones something widely held as evil, slavery.
Jesus himself seemed perfectly fine with it, just as one might expect of someone of that time period..
I don't see the Word of God there, merely the word of men. Men for that matter, using religion to further their own economic interests.
I've seen intellectual apologists deal fairly well with the problem of evil, though it's perhaps one of my greatest struggles in personal faith of any sort. Came face to face with it when my son died, because that simply didn't fit everything I was told when I was young. It still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, unless I accept that God allows a lot of randomness in the world. Because the idea that there is a plan that is greater than I can know or see . . . that makes me foaming at the mouth angry.
Also for me, the ways and means of the creation of the Bible . . . so political and so carefully crafted. There was a definite push to create a certain image of God and of Christ when books were chosen. That shouldn't be pushed aside.
Now if God exists and Christianity is true and God is completely omnipotent and whatnot, then of course, He/She could have been guiding the people putting it together.
But what is telling for me is that many Americans do not realize that the Bible they read at night is merely a translation of original works. In some cases, several generations of translation. And the translations don't always mean the same thing - they certainly don't use the same words. And it's more than just a stylization choice (say, King James version versus The Message). You formalize or informalize something and the meanings are different. It changes. It's dynamic. And that should give anyone pause when they quote the Bible or claim it's the word of God. As Jekka cunningly put it once before - it wasn't faxed down in English. Given that . . . shouldn't we be a little wary?
That leaves aside completely all of the contradictions and things that were clearly aimed at a particular (and ancient) audience and not applicable to modern life.
The slavery thing is an interesting example, and I'm not sure it's a good one, because the way we think now about individualism and personal freedom and rights is so wildly removed from the way that the ancients considered it. If one were to replace slavery with a possibly more accurate example (and less emotionally charged than slavery as we understand it today), say . . . working a crap job because that's the job you have and you haven't got a choice in it - maybe that's easier to understand. I think you have to be careful about modern sociological understandings and imprinting those over what is factually or historically true.
silverblk mystix
10-16-2010, 08:40 AM
How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.
How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.
How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
Six. One to change the bulb, and five to form a society to preserve the memory of the old light bulb.
.................................................. .................
Added 9/29/97 (from archaeology)
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Generally only one, but some rooms we can't even get into since 1933.
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Are you kidding?! Why would we let them do that?! The broken bulb is a national treasure, pointing to our rich, rich history and culture. No, we would rather build a shrine there, and charge admission to see the 'ancient luminosity device'...hmmm, maybe we could even sell little figurines...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually they are afraid to do it...they think that if they remove the top layer bulb, that they will disturb the (presumed) earlier bulbs that are screwed in beneath the one that is currently showing...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but it will take years and years of initial site study...we have to first correlate all the surrounding furniture and domestic devices, and then decide whether the anthropological theory about the bulb being a cultic object (based on its central location in the room, its being up out of reach--symbolizing transcendence, and its obviously sun-like shape) is a correct socio-economic understanding...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
All of them. One to change the bulb, and the rest of them to weep about what Thiering, Allegro, Baigent and Leigh will write about it...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
No amount of them can do it, but for an underground antiquities dealer it only takes 5 minutes...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
501--one to take the old bulb out, and 500 to proclaim that it confirms the biblical record...
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
501--one to take the old bulb out, and 500 to proclaim that it dis-confirms the biblical record...(so much for the univocity of the archaeological record, eh?)
How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, actually, it only takes a couple to remove the old bulb, but then they get so involved in studying the old bulb (especially in trying to correlate its appearance with all other burned-out bulbs within a 1000 km radius), that they never get around to putting the new bulb in...
.................................................. .......................................
How many Daniel Dennett's does it take to change a light bulb?
Depends on how many versions of the light bulb there are, matched up with the number of versions of Dennett...
How many David Chalmers does it take to change a light bulb?
Whoa! Now THAT's a hard problem!
How many David Chalmers does it take to change a light bulb (version 2)?
I am not sure we can even APPROACH the light bulb with the existing tools...we will need to develop different sorts of human limbs for that probably...
How many Roger Penrose's does it take to change a light bulb?
I don't know the exact number, but I am sure it must be some rather elegant prime...
How many zombies does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but I am sure it does it differently than we do.
How many Godelians does it take to change a light bulb?
Three, but don't ask me to prove it.
How many Strong Cartesian Dualists does it take to change a light bulb?
I am not sure they actually can. I had 12 of them in here yesterday trying it, but even with all dozen of them standing on each other's shoulders, they STILL couldn't reach the light bulb!
How many epiphenomenalists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one--and all he or she has to do is to rearrange the furniture on the floor.
How many eliminative materialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, I am afraid to ask them. The whole lot of them went outside last week, started a parade in which they were carrying signs like "I've lost my mind and I am PROUD of it" and "I've never had a mind ever" and "I am completely mind-less; just ask my colleagues"...would YOU feel safe approaching such a group?...I didn't think so.
How many neuroscientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only the dumb ones could do it--the others could not pass the BBB (Brain-Bulb-Barrier)
How many Glenn Miller's does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but it takes him a long, long time. He has to research the history of the light bulb, the layout of the building, the different kinds of bulbs, etc. Plus, he has to whine for a while about having a couple of hundred other burned out lightbulbs in backlog to change...
Added 1/21/97
How many leaders of the Jesus Seminar does it take to change a light bulb?
I really don't think they can do it anymore; but then again, maybe I am too cynical.
How many leaders of the Jesus Seminar does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, they couldn't find the bulb and gave up, muttering something about it must have been eaten by wild dogs or something like that...
How many leaders of the Jesus Seminar does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, at first we thought maybe they could do it, but when they looked at the bulb they decided somehow that it really wasn't the bulb in question and put it down, and for quite some time now, they have been in the kitchen trying to 'unscrew' an onion--and there's not much of it left either...(hmmm...I just noticed something...when you look at an onion from the side, with its stem still attached, it looks like a letter from the alphabet...odd)
New-added 11/1/96
How many particles does it take to change a light bulb?
Hmmm...well, if we know the position of the burned-out light bulb, then we cannot answer this question with certainty.
How many particles does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but IF the particle is a large one, then I has to do it VERY quickly. If a smaller particle, then it can take its time.
How many particles (okay, okay--how many 'amplitudes') does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, if it is supervised very carefully by a macro-entity.
How many fermions does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, no more than one is allowed--unless the light bulb is exactly on a state line somewhere, so that the fermions could stand on different sides of the line.
How many bosons does it take to change a light bulb?
Probably only one or two, but bosons are so gregarious, we've never seen less than a gaggle try it!
How many particles does it take to change a light bulb?
Depends on how "excited" they are about the job.
How many particles does it take to change a light bulb?
On some days, none (e.g. fortuitous quantum fluctuation days)...
How many electrons does it take to change a light bulb?
Don't be absurd--you have the question backwards--it's "how many light bulbs does it take to change an electron" silly!
How many particles does it take to change a light bulb?
What a futile question! Don't you realize that any energy exchanged between the change-er and the change--ee is probably going to be in the form of photons anyway?! With all that light, why even hassle with changing the bulb?! (Good grief, what DO they teach these folk in school nowadays?)
How many Classic Foundationalists (epistemology) does it take to change a lightbulb?
Depends on whether the bulb is incorrigible or not...
How many Quantum physicists does it take to change a lightbulb? (version two)
Depends on the room size--you need to fill the room first with blind-folded scientists. Then, upon a signal, they all remove the blindfolds and look toward the general area of the 'old' bulb. Then, when the waveform collapses, whoever is CLOSEST to the newly 'congealed' bulb, grabs it, and WITHOUT blinking, makes the change. Also, this procedure MAY required one additional physicist to remove a dead cat from the room
How many Natural Selectionists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Well actually, we won't even TRY to change the bulb. We will simply stop using the room that has the burned out bulb, and start using only rooms with FUNCTIONING bulbs. That way, over time, ....
How many punctuated equilibrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Actually, they say it cannot be done-at least not for large light bulbs. But, on the other hand, very very small bulbs-like those in miniature Christmas trees-CAN be changed, but ONLY if they are placed in some very isolated spot (like a shoe box under the bed). The good news is that, if the conditions are right, these little bulbs change VERY RAPIDLY! (The bad news is they may not be bulbs when they're done.)
How many chaos theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they just get the butterfly to flap its wings a SECOND time.
How many quantum physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, actually, but it takes two DISTINCT steps. First, she must look in the general direction of the bulb (to collapse the wave function-you can't very well change a bulb scattered all over the room, now can you?!) and then replace it before she blinks.
How many cultural constructivists does it take to change a light bulb?
[Actually, they refused to answer, on the grounds that the joke perpetuated the myth of objectivity (mumbled something about an 'objective bulb'). Then told me to go read Durkheim in the dark. Go figure.]
MEANT.
How many Derrida'ists THOUGHT YOU does
D
E
P
E
N
DS
it take on WhAt YoU
to change a light bulb?
How many Inerrantists does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, the bulb is not really broken. If we could see it through 1st century eyes and worldview, we would see that the bulb is PERFECTLY FINE.
How many Errantists does it take to change a light bulb?
Don't be silly. It is impossible to have a bulb that is free from flaws-they ALL are burned out--if you look closely enough, with an open mind, and WITHOUT your dogma. You can't 'fix' this problem.
(Contributed by Prof. John Bigelow of Monash U.)
How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
Depends on how you define 'change'.
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two--one to bemoan the darkness until the other redefines something else as light.
How many Classic Idealists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one--he prays, God turns his head to pay attention, the light bulb moves!
How many Analytic Philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
None-its a pseudo-problem...light bulbs give off light (hence the name)...if the bulb was broken and wasn't giving off light, it wouldn't be a 'light bulb' now would it? (oh, where has rigor gone?!)
How many Reformed epistemologists does it take to change a light bulb?
1.37--and that needs no explanation because it is a properly basic belief.
How many monists does it take to change a light bulb?
Don't be silly, there is only ONE monist...
How many deconstructionists does it take to change a light bulb?
On the contrary, the NILE is the longest river in Africa.
How many liberation theologians does it take to change a light bulb?
None--WE shot out the bulb in the name of Christian revolution!
How many Kantians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two to change the phenomenal bulb; and one to explain that we might not have actually changed the bulb-an-sich at all.
How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one (to aim the x-ray machine) but the bulb changes very, very slowly
How many Creation Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: one to change it quickly, and one to point out that no transitional forms occurred at all.
How many Nietzschians does it take to change a light bulb?
.00001
How many Heraclitians does it take to change a light bulb?
None--its never the same light bulb again anyway
How many Process philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one really fast one--to stand in front of the bulb and block it from prehending the attribute of 'brokenness' in the next 1/32nd of a second!
How many Humean's does it take to change a light bulb?
None--since the bulb actually contains a gaseous substance, and thus contains no 'abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number' nor any 'experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence' it will simply be removed and thrown in the fire...
How many speech act theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
Do you really want to know or are you simply asking me to change it?
How many philosophers of language does it take to change a light bulb?
None--we can't see the referent through the opacity of the phrase 'light bulb'.
How many phenomenologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only a couple, but by the time they get through with it, the 100-watt bulb has been reduced to a night light.
How many skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, they won't do it--they have no sense of urgency about the situation--they aren't sure they're really in the dark...
How many modal logicians does it take to change a light bulb?
In WHICH world?
How many fatalists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, why fight it?
How many Anselmists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one is NECESSARY.
How many Aristotelians does it take to change a light bulb?
Exactly four (it's a causality thing)
How many theodicists does it take to change a light bulb?
100-one to change the bulb, and 99 to explain why an infinite God of love would allow darkness to occur in the world at all
How many solipcists does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually there are none left in existence...they simply "solipcided away"
How many fallibilists does it take to change a light bulb?
Three, but I COULD be wrong about that.
How many Epicureans does it take to change a light bulb?
None-they're too busy taking advantage of the darkness!
How many Hegelians does it take to change a light bulb?
None-the bulb is just at one dialectical pole between 'bright' and 'dark'--it will eventually synthesize these into at least some dim glow for us...
How many Cartesians does it take to change a light bulb?
None--unfortunately, when the bulb blew out, they were all so shocked that they stopped thinking for that brief moment--and 'poof', they all just blinked out of existence.
How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You're still thinking in terms of 'incremental change'--what we really need is paradigm shift...we don't need a bulb with more attributes added on, we need ubiquitous luminescence.
How many decision theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
PROBABLY two.
Amarelooms
10-16-2010, 09:11 AM
^^^ son get out my thread and stop posting bullshit. This thread is meant to make the dummy fanatic religious people who are brainwashed think
:elephant
TheThinkingMan
10-16-2010, 09:16 AM
^^^ son get out my thread and stop posting bullshit. This thread is meant to make the dummy fanatic religious people who are brainwashed think
:elephant
Nothing wrong with thinking. :tu
silverblk mystix
10-16-2010, 09:29 AM
^^^ son get out my thread and stop posting bullshit. This thread is meant to make the dummy fanatic religious people who are brainwashed think
:elephant
I know-but they can't or won't ever understand independent thinking. There are safeguards for this in religion.
Words like blasphemy, commandments like-not taking the lord's name in vain,etc...
All these are safeguards in controlling people. These rules have been taken whole and swallowed by gajillions of people. So,because they number in the gajillions, they think it makes them correct.
They are going to heaven-you are not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.